9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above date. As there is non-compliance by the assessee, the present appeal is disposed off after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10 on 23.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,86,344/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 20.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs. 10,93,521/- by making an addition of Rs. 5,07,182/- on account of bogus purchases. Subsequently, on appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed his income as held by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. He had not maintained any accounts and he filed his return of income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the estimate of the assessee and brought his income to tax by increasing it to Rs. 2,07,500/-. This, too, was on estimate basis. The Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate of the turnover but was of the view that the estimate as made by the Assessing Officer was highly excessive and it fixed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,50,000/- for the year under appeal. It is, thus, clear that there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty imposed is not sustainable. Accordingly I direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 19,590/-." 5. The Ld. DR relies on the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of ITO v. M/s Bhansali Trading Corporation (ITA No. 735/JP/2012) for AY 2005-06 and submits that the penalty of Rs. 19,590/- levied by the AO be restored. 6. We heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. In the case of M/s Bhansali Trading Corporation (supra), the Tribunal observed that the addition made by the AO was specific on account of unverifiable purchases on which GP @ 25% was applied and added to income ; the assessee was not able to produce the concerned parties for verification a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
